Slashdot Mirror

Why retain the label of Republican when you could just call yourself Conservative and identify the problems with the Republicans or side with Libertarians or Tea Party? I mean, you sell your idea as core Conservatism and publish it for Republicans yet you're fired for it. And then you still continue to call yourself Republican? Why?

US politics encourages a two party system.

I would also guess he feels connected to the historical Republican Party. It was anti-slavery on principle, because it believed in a nation of ideals, not race.

Wiki has some good quotes from Lincoln, but especially read the ones from the Lincoln-Douglas debates (1958). http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

If they [immigrants from other nations] look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none [...] but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and then they feel that [...] they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration; and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.

He also thinks pedophilia should be legal
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

"On sex

        [P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."

RMS is a piece of shit.

... for a much lesser "crime" of interfering with business models based on "artificial scarcity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

BTW, something Martin Luther King said:
http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."

"Work is the curse of the drinking class" -- Oscar Wilde

You obviously haven't read the history available about the second. Or at least a very selective version of it.

While militias were important, there was no question that the right to keep and bear arms was to be more about the people, than the militia. You had founders writing it into their basic lists for human rights.

By your argument though, the federal government really should do more about keeping the militias relevant - such as by subsidizing ranges, training, and competition more.

You seem to make the mistake that the writers of the constitution were concerned with unlimited gun rights, when they were really concerned about having a well regulated militia to protect the state

Did you know that the original was more:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

One of the preparers was rather fond of the use of commas, placing one whenever you would pause while speaking the phrase.

"They should mint the trillion dollar coin and put Ronald fucking Reagan's picture on it."

No, I think it should be Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney. That motto should go on there too.

I resemble very much being called a half wit, AC. And I have half a mind to tell you where to go. But I confess that when it comes to the American sheeple, you are sadly too right.

TSA gets a pass by most Americans.

Ben Franklin said it so nicely. His exact quote is as follows:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.

An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

Fake quote.....

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Sinclair_Lewis

Punishment is not the cause of good judgment.

But it can lead to it:

• Punishment or bad outcomes are usually the result of using bad judgement
• If you believe it, bad judgement produces experience
• Experience leads to good judgement

Unless you're being punished randomly, you can make a connection between punishment and good judgement, at least in areas where bad judgement produces punishment over the short- or longer-term.

John von Neumann: "In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them."

The same applies in many ways to quantum mechanics. Even if you don't really understand something, it doesn't mean you can't use it.

Sure, mathematical principles, NOT language. Overloading words is a communication failure, not comprehension.
The whole point of language is understanding.

Sure, don't bother trying to learn why this is; just blame it on someone else and think yourself the better man for being ignorant.

Richard Feynman: "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it."

I'll take Feynman's attitude towards obtuse, confusing jargon over your smug shit any day.

But then again, Feyman didn't have to respond to jackasses in online forums. While Feynman was a saint when it came to honestly inquisitive minds, he had absolutely no patience for arrogant fools (which BitZtream clearly is).

BitZtream: please try to grasp the difference between dense jargon and complex concepts which you simply don't understand. And if you think the word 'negative' is jargon then I'm afraid that physics is something that you should just let go. Nothing for you to see here, just move along.

John von Neumann: "In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them."

The same applies in many ways to quantum mechanics. Even if you don't really understand something, it doesn't mean you can't use it.

You missed the point. My reply was to this:

Sure, don't bother trying to learn why this is; just blame it on someone else and think yourself the better man for being ignorant.

Accepting you're ignorant of why something works or acknowledging that you don't understand it but you're willing to use it anyway is the exact opposite of smugly hiding behind gobbledygook and thinking that using big words displays knowledge.

In other words, acknowledging ignorance is vastly superior to being too stupid to know you're ignorant.

John von Neumann: "In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them."

The same applies in many ways to quantum mechanics. Even if you don't really understand something, it doesn't mean you can't use it.

Sure, don't bother trying to learn why this is; just blame it on someone else and think yourself the better man for being ignorant.

Richard Feynman: "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it."

I'll take Feynman's attitude towards obtuse, confusing jargon over your smug shit any day.

"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao

anyone with his bizarro attitudes towards child abuse, probably wants their searches to be entirely on TOR.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! -- Upton Sinclair http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair

I can pay $50 more. But only if that will mean, at least $50 will be taken away from Microsoft. I don't care where it will go (baby mulching machines running OpenBSD would be fine), just not back to Microsoft.

The problem that I see with this, someone is still feeding Microsoft even when users are voting with their wallets against Microsoft.

Paglia has been trolling the feminist establishment for for years. Now she has broadened her trolling to sell more books. It's boring and this post is troll bait.

You're right. We should shut down all charities immediately. After all humanitarian charities didn't charge the recipients for all that food and medical aid they give to the poor and needy around the world. So obviously the food provided no nutrition and the medical aid didn't help treat any diseases. All because the recipients weren't charged money for them.

He's quoting this

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)#Dialogue

Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy, how the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians. [to a student] You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?

Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.

Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.

So the freeness in "something given" is not purely monetary. In fact in the society of Starship Troopers money does not buy you the right to vote, only serving in the military does. Seems very reasonable to me.

"I'm sick and tired of people saying that we put out 11 albums that sound exactly the same. In fact, we've put out 12 albums that sound exactly the same."

If our detection capabilities can let us spot a Super-Jupiter sized object 100 light years away, are there smaller object that are closer, but still pose a threat?

Of course there are. Scientists point out new discoveries of these all the time, and show the near misses. There's loads of things we haven't seen yet, which is why you can still get new comets being discovered that have hugely elliptic orbits.

We should improve our detection abilities mainly to spot asteroids headed our way in time to prevent a catastrophe.

I think this has already been best answered with "Well, our object collision budget's about a million dollars a year. That allows us to track about three percent of the sky, and begging your pardon sir, but it's a big-ass sky."

If we truly had one incoming on a collision course ... I'm pretty sure we have nowhere near the technology to do anything about it. People occasionally float a new idea, but so far if something big comes along, we're screwed. Same if the Vogons show up.

"The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends." -- Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man under Socialism" (as per http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde)

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Said the slave owner.

I believe this is a Benjamin Franklin quote, and to the best of my limited knowledge and quick research, he did not own slaves. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

To summarize the summary of the summary: People are a problem

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca

As quoted in What Great Men Think About Religion (1945) by Ira D. Cardiff, p. 342; No original source for this has been found in the works of Seneca, or published translations. It is likely that the quote originates with Edward Gibbon who wrote:

The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. --- Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. I, Ch. II

Elbert Hubbard would claim in 1904 (Little Journeys: To the homes of great philosophers: Seneca) that Gibbon was "making a free translation from Seneca".

(Source)

That's interesting. Wikiquote has a very much opposite quote.
"We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs. "
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

640kB should be enough for anybody.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed

The future can't be predicted. That's what makes living so worthwhile: What kind of life would it be if we knew what would happen tomorrow?

Exactly. The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Alan Kay

Exterminate!

If too obscure, here's a reference to the souce: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Daleks

"I don't understand austerity; is the idea "sacrifice tomorrow to pay for today"? I bet that will work about as well as it sounds."

Well, yes. Yes, it is "sacrifice tomorrow to pay for today", because unfortunately for a few decades the idea has been "spend tomorrow's money today" or "borrow money from the future", and we've run out of credit. AKA "deficits don't matter".

Since 2008 we've been finding out what happens when you borrow too much money from the future. "Austerity" has become popular because there's no more that can be borrowed from future earnings. It's tapped out. It's at or near the limit, and beyond that is financial disaster. And you're right that failing to invest in the future (e.g., infrastructure, education and research) won't work out well either, but we should have clued into that before choosing to be backed into a corner by debt costs.

It's like half the world has been partying and running up a huge bar tab, and now the bill has come due. The financial hangover is bad, and it will have long-term consequences for an entire generation. Hopefully people learn the lesson that persistently running countries on debt for long periods of time has long-term consequences that should be avoided by not implementing tax cuts and more spending in good times until debt is paid off (or at least reduced to manageable levels), so that you're ready for the next economic swing.

That brings to mind a quote attributed (incorrectly) to the French philosopher Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Other quotes from Voltaire from that same page make sense to me, such as "It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one." [Innocent until proven guilty] and 'People sometimes say: "Common sense is quite rare." ' as well as "What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly — that is the first law of nature."

-- Roman law maxim

If the side are evenly matched, then you have already failed.

Sun Tzu would go farther than that:

From http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu :

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

See:

The Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update

"A Comparison of `The Limits to Growth` with Thirty Years of Reality"

Geen Illusions by Ozzie Zehner

Carrying capacity of the planet is dependent on how you structure civilization; any estimate is political in nature and open to discussions regarding consumption of energy, food, hard goods and waste handling. To believe otherwise is to leave the decisions to others. If you believe less government is the ultimate solution, I won't have to encourage you to revisit history.

~ You'll be reliving it soon enough.

Its his only quote on wikiquote among other places: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bob_Parsons

All they need is a good supply of molded protein. With a little ingenuity, you can even make a birthday cake out of it!

"Good artists copy, great artists steal" - Steve Jobs, 1994

This is a misattributed quote. It should more correctly be attributed to either Pablo Picasso (an overrated artist) or Igor Stravinsky (an excellent composer).

I believe the original quote is:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Or, to paraphrase, They who can give up the their pursuit of happiness in exchange for safety, deserve neither happiness nor safety. The philosophy behind the quote is simple: Absolute safety is not a desirable end in itself, because it invariably comes at the cost of letting people live their lives how they want. In context, that means that if the only route to decent security is to abandon one's ability to lead a modern live with the conveniences thereof, it is instead the security that must be abandoned as a matter of principle.

This is not to say that better security is always detrimental. Rather, if security and modern convenience can both be achieved without compromise, then by all means that is preferable. Again, though, the innocent people involved don't have the choice whether to have security or not. They don't ever get the information to make an informed choice, so they cannot be held responsible for making the wrong one. Every bank claims their security is top-notch, and few actually are.

He's certainly not a hero, but we all need and are entitled to free speech. My attitude toward Raub would be the same as that of Evelyn Beatrice Hall summarizing Voltaire:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Interestingly enough Max Planck said the same thing back in 1948 about the dogma and institution of Science:
    "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Or para-phrased:
    "Science advanced one funeral at a time"

The old want things to remain the way they always have been.
The youth want things that will be.
Society is a balance of these two diametrically opposed ideologies.

Reference:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

My point is that if you don't vote, and don't involve yourself in politics, your complaints don't really resonate very much. You live in a democracy, which definitely has flaws, as do all systems, but at least you have an opportunity to try to do something about it. Vote, demonstrate, start a political organization, sponsor an independent candidate, make a documentary, but don't just sit there and do nothing and complain that nothing ever changes. Then it never will. To quote (or paraphrase) Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Superior ability breeds superior ambition.

Diplomacy is never handled so crassly.

Politics, and diplomacy as its tool, is known as "the art of possible." This case is a good illustration. Without threatening with a predestined event, FO laid out the possibilities. If you do A we will do B. If you do C we will do D and will not do B. All paths are open until you step on one of them - and it is your choice.

quoting Linus again: "First off, I'm actually perfectly well off. I live in a good-sized house, with a nice yard, with deer occasionally showing up and eating the roses (my wife likes the roses more, I like the deer more, so we don't really mind). I've got three kids, and I know I can pay for their education. What more do I need? The thing is, being a good programmer actually pays pretty well; being acknowledged as being world-class pays even better. I simply didn't need to start a commercial company. And it's just about the least interesting thing I can even imagine. I absolutely hate paperwork. I couldn't take care of employees if I tried. A company that I started would never have succeeded – it's simply not what I'm interested in! So instead, I have a very good life, doing something that I think is really interesting, and something that I think actually matters for people, not just me. And that makes me feel good." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

"Only wimps use tape[*] backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)"

Linus Torvalds (1996) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

(Isn't that prescience of "The Cloud"?)

––––––––––

* replace this with your favorite backup media of today ;-)

"Only wimps use ftp[*] backup: real men just upload their important stuff to the iCloud, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)"

An Amazon support employee (2012)

"Only wimps use tape[*] backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)"
Linus Torvalds (1996) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

(Isn't that prescience of "The Cloud"?)

––––––––––
* replace this with your favorite backup media of today ;-)

I love this quote! But you really ought to attribute it to the correct source, which is John Rogers.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

Don't know if serious or seriously doesn't get the reference